FOCUS

BHARAT RATNA, SACHIN TENDULKAR 

& JUSTICE KATJU

The title reads funny, more so under Focus! However much bemused the readers are, a look at the events of the last couple of months will throw much light and open vistas for discussion on how our media need to function. 

“Don’t give Bharat Ratna to Sachin Tendulkar – PCI Chief-Justice Markandey Katju” cried some in the print media. And that is how the combination of Bharat Ratna, Sachin Tendulkar and Justice Katju evolved overnight. We need to look at each of these three dimensions individually and bring about unity.

Bharat Ratna, meaning Jewel of India is an award instituted by the government of India by an enactment of the parliament on 2nd Jan. 1954. As is clear in its inherent meaning, this is the highest civilian award given to an individual who has rendered service of the highest order to the nation, in recognition of the same. The statute covering the award informs the kind of services which include-arts, literature, science and technology and public service.

Forty one eminent personalities, living and dead, Indian and foreign, have been conferred this honour. Details of awardees are available in the public domain for all to know.

The issue of Bharat Ratna became a topic of discussion in recent days after a section of Indians especially from Maharashtra proposed that cricketer Sachin Tendulkar be considered for this highest national award. Sports was not an area considered for this highest national honours so far. For his achievements as a cricketer, on recommendation of the sports ministry, Tendulkar was awarded both Padmashree and Padma Bhushan on different occasions, besides Arjuna award and Khel Ratan award.

But Padma Shree or Padma Bhushan or even Padma Vibhushan cannot automatically qualify one for Bharat Ratna. Bharat Ratna is awarded as a rare honour. It is true that behind all awards there are grey areas. Machinations and manipulations often go into the process of nominations and selections. In most cases controversy cannot be ruled out. For that matter even the Nobel Prize is not free from unsavoury angles. But Bharat Ratna is certainly above all other awards conferred in India.

Sportsmen are generally awarded Arjuna award, and Khel Ratan’s are very rarely given. Some of them do end up with some of the Padma award depending on different considerations and yardsticks. Indeed, it is a well known fact that many achievers, whose services call for national honours and public recognitions, have remained unseen, unheard and therefore unrecognized in the public domain for varieties of reasons, including downright bias. “Full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its fragrance in the desert air” or “In a poultry show peacock did not get an award” are the gems of thoughts that cross our mind. These are universal truths and not found in India alone. Probably they are hard facts of life. Cry in the wilderness is an essential concomitant of modern day living. 

In such a scenario, talk about giving or awarding Bharat Ratna to Tendulkar, has understandably aroused extreme reactions.

We need to examine both aspects, or rather three aspects of the issue, one who proposed it, the other who opposes and the third are the unconcerned ones, and they are very large in number. Those who proposed, why they have proposed, and those opposed, what reasons that prompted them to do so, are the questions to be dealt with.

Now who is Tendulkar? 

Oh my God! How dare you ask such a question? In Shiv Sena’s Mumbai, you can even be bashed up for asking such a stupid question.  He is the presiding deity of Indian cricket, a dream of every young cricketer. Undoubtedly, he is a legend in batting that not many can match, either in India or anywhere else, where cricket is a passion. Shane Warne, the Australian spin magician, exclaimed “He gave nightmares to me”. He comprehensively derailed the super fast “Rawalpindi Xpress”, the Pakistani pace sensation, Shoib Akhtar. He has, over a period of 20 years, hit every known swinger of the cherry into submission, with disdain and cool contempt with the ease of a panther that would run into lambs. Such was his authority on this ‘gentleman’s game’ that just about whole of print media called him  the ‘uncrowned king’ of the white man’s legacy, when he completed the century of centuries.

Yes, he is the only one in the history of cricket who scored one hundred hundreds in his total score in first class cricket of over 16,000 runs. There never was one, and there never may be another who can repeat this near miracle performance. All these superlatives are in the public domain and all those who are in the know of things cricket, are fully aware of his heroics in the cricket arena. Hence the question who is Sachin Tendulkar requires no answer, and dismiss the guy who asked this silly barb with the disdain it deserved. Thus, his greatness with the willow is indisputable. 

But, excuse me gentlemen, will this cricketing hundred of hundreds is good enough to be considered for the nation’s highest civilian award? To be part of the nation’s history, for the information of posterity, as Bharat Ratna, just being a cricketing legend is a qualification enough?

These are very loaded questions. And quite rightly it has raised expected brickbats and accolades. Being a public figure, and in the thick of media glare for all 20 years that he strode the cricket pitch like a colossus, it is but fit that he is under equally glaring public scrutiny. It is not for nothing that Justice Markandeya Katju had categorically stated the other day, in Kolkatta while presiding over a cultural function “Don’t give Bharat Ratna to Tendualkar.”  As the Press Council Chairman, post retirement as Supreme Court justice, was it appropriate to enter this controversy is a moot point.

Coming back to our famous Sachin Tendulkar and the proposal by the government in Mumbai, to the Union government, to consider him for awarding Bharat Ratna, makes it imperative that some kind of Balance Sheet is drawn on the institution that is Tendulkar.

Many in the media sing paens on the man and his cricket, and as many disagree with the hype that goes with his cricketing prowess. 

Writing on “The God of a hundred things” in the Hindu, Nissim Mannathukkaren says, “While there were glowing tributes to Tendulkar reaching the century milestone, there was a deathly silence about the inexplicably slow innings that brought the hundred-100 off 138 balls, his second slowest one-day century, that too against Bangladesh-which eventually played a part in India’s defeat and eventual exit from the tournament. The milestone, which had become a millstone around the neck could be achieved only by sacrificing the interest of the team, that too after an year’s mortally agonising struggle”, he added, “For once, Tendulkar’s oft repeated ‘serving the country’ line clearly did not hold good”.

Naturally, the question arises ‘Was he playing for India or was he playing for his records?’ At different points of time this question did make its rounds. Thus there is, indeed, a public perception both privately whispered as well as expressed through the media, that often, the time Tendulkar took at the crease while reaching his hundreds were inordinately long. There is no denying that all players do look forward to creating records of one kind or the other and that is very human. But playing for the country and playing for the records is not the same thing. Here, it is very pertinent to quote Imran Khan , a former Pakistani cricket captain, who wrote “Records must be broken within the team winning. You should not be playing to break records. Records should be part of the win”. He was generally commenting on why Tendulkar is not retiring. At that time Tendulkar was still chasing the elusive hundredth hundred, and India had lost eight matches in a row, to both England and Australia, with Tendulkar playing in all of them. 

Comparisons are inevitable. There have been references in the past on another cricketing legend who recently retired, Rahul Dravid, that he did not overtly worry about records. Incidentally, he is the second highest scorer in our cricket statistics after Tendulkar.

Hence, it is very clear that there are differing opinions about Tendulkar being considered for the nation’s highest recognition only because he has hit his hundredth hundreds.

There are other human frailties which need to be recounted to refresh public memory about incidents which show this demigod as just another human being looking for personal benefits.

Sometime in 2003, one fine morning he gets a ‘gift’ from FIAT-Italy, a Ferrari  Sports Coupe, a glitzy mean machine, which then was costing around Rs:75 lakhs. This ‘gift’, as per norms attracted customs and other import duties of about Rs: 1.2 crores. It is another matter that in Mumbai in normal hours, driving this sports car could be difficult. It is alleged that, to circumvent the tax liability on payments that Tendulkar would receive as per his contract, the ‘gift’ was organized. He reportedly called Pramod Mahajan then a Union Minister and a political heavy weight from Mumbai for help. An obliging Finance Minister, Jaswanth Singh, acted immediately on Mahajan’s request. Ostensibly in its highest tradition, the Finance Ministry, in “Public interest” decides to waive the duty of nearly Rs: 1.2 crore, to the ‘richest poor man’ of Indian sports.

Now a person worth hundreds of crores of rupees, in 2003, requesting the government for a measly sum of one crore and twenty lakhs which in all probability is much less than 1% of his net worth, asking for a waiver on a legitimate government due-which really is the country’s money, is simply unthinkable. “Sachin Tendulkar may be a good cricketer, but he does not seem to be a good citizen” said Indian Express, commenting on this duty waiver episode. Or else, how can anybody explain this request from a person who received all the adulation and the resultant wealth from the nation? Would you think, he would still deserve to be a Bharat Ratna?

Another reported incident was involving him in registering his vehicle in New Mumbai, while he is living in main-land Mumbai. The road tax and other government dues are supposedly less in New Mumbai. It was, indeed, very shocking if this was true as reported in the media from Mumbai, since the amount involved could be only in some thousands! Mahavir Pendhari, Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation had confirmed that Sachin Tendulkar, Shankar Mahadevan and Anil Ambani were some of the big names in the list of defaulters who were served with notices for cess theft. And do you know what! These biggies gave addresses of some slums, the report informs. 

Then, there is, his attitude towards quitting the Indian team. He had so much of it for over 20 years-name, fame and fortune. No other Indian cricketer was celebrated as Tendulkar. His earnings from advertisements, sponsorships and other commercial appearances are legendary. The demand for his retirement became shriller after the England and Australia white-wash of India. It must have bothered him greatly that others are worried about his retirement from Indian cricket. 

Hence, as soon as he completed his 100th hundred, he combatively declared, “I will decide when I need to retire.” ‘Isn’t it dangerous for the game to put an individual above it?’ asked somebody in the media. Tendulkar’s argument was “When you are at the top, you should keep serving the country instead of retiring”. But who said you are at the top? You took more than a year to get to that elusive 100th hundred that too against Bangladesh. There are any number of instances when you have failed with the bat in recent times! You are getting older, a truth you cannot negate. You didn’t play in IPL, you gave up your captaincy of Mumbai Indians to Harbhajan Singh. You opted out of India team to Sri Lanka. Yes indeed, because you opted out, a young and very talented Ajinkya Rahane got into the Indian team. Precisely for this reason you should opt out of Indian team for good, just like entrenched politicians need to give up their seats in Legislative Assemblies, Councils and Parliament. ‘Enjoy, when the going is good, damn others in the Q’, who also want to serve Mother India!' is the principle of suckers.

Talking about being on top, Rahul Dravid, while hanging his boot had reportedly observed “May be sometime these things are better judged from outside. As a player you will never admit to weakness, to a slowing down of skills. You are not trained to admit these things”. This is in sharp contrast to Tendulkar’s attitude.

The recent nomination of Tendulkar to the Rajya Sabha too has evoked sharp responses. Many of his friends in Mumbai cricket felt, he would not accept it. But he surprised all. Bal Thackeray had reportedly termed it as a “joke”. The Supreme Court wanted to know under what category Tendulkar has been nominated, when the nomination was challenged as unconstitutional. Sachin Tendulkar is a public figure. He will therefore be under continuous public scrutiny. Hence his Bharat Ratna ambition too will be objectively debated for obvious reasons. If Justice Markandeya Katju has fired the first salvo of disapproval, it may not be the last. We need to thank Justice Katju for his forthright stand on it, although he is not clear why he does not want him considered for the top honour.

Another aspect that could show Tendulkar as commercially oriented was his interest in up-market eating joints in Colaba in South Mumbai, Mulund in North Mumbai, so also in Bangalore with abundant up-market connoisseurs of good things of life. And if you go back to the entire list of Bharat Ratna recipients, only one was from the Industry & Commerce. Rest were all from artistic, literary and scientific fields besides public service. The honourable exception was JRD Tata. Can we compare Sachin Tendulkar to JRD Tata? That is like comparing Sun to 100 watt bulb. The Maharashtra government and those in the central government, for whom Sachin Tendulkar’s political nomination, duty waiver and Bharat Ratna could only be a Vote Bank exercise, need to explain a lot.

Turning to the Press Council Chairman, Justice Markandeya Katju, it is true that he came with a bang. In less than a month’s time, since his appointment late last year, he had already become a subject of intense discussion by all those who are threatened by his public stance as ‘How press should behave’, in the contemporary media scene. Media in India has neither a rudder nor a rein. Hence Justice Katju is a natural thing to happen. 

There have been vocal public participation in the media, from across the county in the debate about the deterioration in media scene and why Justice Katju could be the medicine it needs. We have reproduced two letters from readers in the print media (see box). Hopefully he leaves his footprints not only on the media highway but also in its by-lanes. 

This is not to suggest that all have accepted Justice Katju and the prescription that he is talking about. There have been people-both readers and so-called writers, journalists and intellectuals-who have riled him for his over-enthusiasm. At least one writer was rather very unkind on him. Sashi Kumar, who heads the Media Development Foundation of Chennai, in his article ‘Musing on the media in the dock’ which appeared in the Hindu of Nov. 22, 2011 was rather very acerbic. His opening remark in the article was ‘Much of the media, says Justice Markandey Katju, the New Chairman of the Press Council of India is of very poor intellectual level.’ That was rather in a very bad taste and it was highly irresponsible for Sashi Kumar to write so.

Here it is very pertinent to quote what S. Viswanathan, the Readers Editor at the Hindu has to say, and we quote “As a judge of the highest court of the land, Mr Katju was known for his libertarian views and delivered many pro-poor judgements. His credentials are strong when it comes to criticising the media for working against the interest of the deprived and the poor, for dividing them on caste and communal lines and for promoting superstition and obscurantism instead of scientific and rational ideas”.Of course, even the Hindu can be accused of ‘keeping society divided on communal lines’. The Hindu, is not even-handed when it comes to reporting and commenting on socio-political issues, and it calls itself as ‘INDIA’S NATIONAL NEWSPAPER SINCE 1878’, in capital letters.

But then, unexpectedly an inexplicable thing happened!

Ever since Justice Katju became the PCI Chairman, and after having read about his concerns on the media scene in general and the alleged ‘low intellectual caliber of to-day's reporters and sub-editors’, we at I & C were very keen to contact him. We were planning a function to release our 150th issue in Manipal for which, besides other prominent public figures, we were keen to have the current PCI Chairman as a guest of honour. Our efforts to contact him came to a naught for reasons unfathomable by us. We have reproduced our letter to him (on page 13) for the public knowledge. Since the PCI Chairman is a public figure, we believe it is in order for us to inform the general public about this. The question that rankled us was, why did Justice Katju do this to us, despite our being very respectful to his public office? Besides for all 12 years of our existence in the print media, we did exactly what he thought as responsible journalism. Our letter to Justice Katju, seeking his reply did not elicit a response. The letter is self explanatory. As we end, we will appreciate readers to respond with their views. 

While Justice Katju speaks lofty tenets for the media and riles those who do not practice principles of honest journalism, I & C expected of him only a response based on his precepts. What could cause this hiatus between precepts and practice? Dear Readers, we leave it to you to ponder and revert.

J.Shriyan

Letter to Justice Katju

Honorable Justice Markandey Katju,                                                                     Date: 14/04/2012
Greetings of the season.
Sorry for taking liberty with your time which seems to be is very precious. This is the 4th attempt of writing to you. Hope at long lost this shall receive some attention and a response too.
Ever since you were appointed as Chairman at PCI, you have been in the news. You have made some sharp observations. Some in the media didn’t like it. And some welcomed it. Mr. Sashi Kumar of Media Development Foundation wrote, “Much of the Media says Markandey Katju, the new Chairman of Press Council of India, is of very poor intellectual level” (The Hindu, Nov.22, 2011). I & C had condemned it outright, (I&C-Dec 2011, page 12, Column 3), “That was like telling one’s father that, I am an Oxon from Oxford, you are only an ox”. The observation by Mr. Kumar was indeed in poor taste. That is the kind of freedom our journos are looking for.
Sir, I first wrote my letter while sending along a few copies of I & C monthly issues with a copy of the decennial souvenir, on 06-12-2011. Copy of the letter, which is self explanatory, is enclosed.
Our 150th issue is planned for release between 1st Sept & 10th Sept. I am hoping to invite some VIPs from New Delhi, which included your honorable selves. Hence we requested honorable Justice…………., former Supreme Court Justice, to put in a word to you. He spoke to you on 2nd March in my presence for a possible meeting with you in Delhi and informed that I am going to be in Delhi, on 13th, 14th, and 15th March. These three days were particularly kept free by the undersigned, to facilitate a flexible meeting day and time. I gather from Justice…… that you had confirmed your availability in your office in New Delhi and that you shall see me on one of those days.
Accordingly my 2nd letter of 05-03-2012 (email & hard copy) followed, confirming the above talk and my travel plans. (Letter copy enclosed.) As is evident in the letter, it had mentioned that I shall be carrying a letter to yourselves from Justice…….
Just to ensure that you know the back-ground of I & C, on 06-03-2012 another letter was sent with a copy of the souvenir and some copies of monthly issues, although I had sent them 3 months earlier too, along with my 1st letter.
So I travelled on 11th March and reached New Delhi on 13th morning, covering a distance of 2557 kms. On 13th spoke to Shri Sharma, your private secretary, who couldn’t locate my email in the first instance, but found eventually all my mails along with enclosures, informed the same to me.
Sir, when I spoke to Sharmaji for the 3rd time on that day, around 12.30 noon, he confirmed the above receipt, but regretted that you informed him, that you are to busy on all 3 days of 13th, 14th & 15th and therefore can not see me. This was despite Sharmaji’s explaining to you that ‘the undersigned had come all the way from Mangalore, some 2600 kms away’ Shri Sharma avers.
It was indeed very shocking. I didn’t inform this development to Justice……. for many days, respecting his reputation, since I knew he would be deeply hurt. Eventually Justice……. called around 25th March to find out. When I explained he was very very shocked. Despite elaborate planning, the journey of some 2600 kms, was wasted.
Very concerned at this disturbing happening Justice…… asked, “Could it be, that Secretary Mr. Sharma not telling the truth?” I told him that Sharmaji sounded very sincere.
Sir, assuming Sharmaji was telling the correct position, do I have a right to know, “WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO ME?”, after agreeing with Justice……. and having made me to travel for 2557 kms, of train journey, and perforce had to stay in Delhi for 3 days, just to fit into your programme?
We may be a small time media outfit, but part of the media all the same. As chairman of Press Council of India, ‘Was it right for you to do what you did?’ Don’t you think, an honest, sincere and committed media effort, in serious journalism need to be encouraged? What you did, was to punch us on the face and asked us to ‘get lost, don’t waste my time’. Please do answer. I believe, it is fair to expect an answer from you.

For ISSUES & CONCERNS – J. Shriyan

To
The Chairman
Press Council of India